Template talk:Table Mobile phone standards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Under "frequency bands" in the "mobile phone standards" template it shows GSM and PCS... GSM is not a frequeny band, its a technology, and other systems can be employed in the cellular (800-900mhz) band. I think it should say SMR, Cellular, and PCS, as those are the current band division names according to the FCC. I am making the change, if there is dispute because of standards in other countries we should discuss and expand the template. --Wesman83 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The most neutral would be to simply list them as freqencies. - Keith D. Tyler ΒΆ (AMA) 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well the only problem is that other countries have different ranges for each mobile band, as well as, presumably, different names. I certainly think its fair that all countries systems are represented... this should certainly be discussed more. I will look into it and I hope there will be more feedback in the meantime. --Wesman83 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3.9995G
Should 3G standards really be broken up into 3.5G, 3.75G, etc? The g.xx numbering made some sort of sense for the 2G categories (2G = circuit switched, 2.5G = 2G with packet switching, 2.75G = "Packet switching at so-called 3G speeds but still, essentially, a slow packet switched bolt-on to a 2G network"), but here we seem to just be saying "Oh, this is slightly faster than the former ones."
What do you do with something like EVDO which is the same name, but subject to revisions that make it faster, with a system like that? If UMTS is still UMTS, but HSDPA makes it faster, is it really a new system simply because you have a name for the enhancement?
If the 2.xxG terms were used, surely 3.5G would be 3G with VoIP, and 3.75G would be a 4G system supporting VoIP but using an underlying 3G standard?
They come across as a little arbitrary and subjective. Perhaps something based upon speed might work better and be more informative, eg:
| Mobile phone and data standards |
|
0G
|
|
| 3G | |
| 4G | ...etc... |
I admit a bias against "3G" as a term anyway, given it's more marketing than anything else, but at the same time I could see the logic of the 2.xxG categories which I don't think applies here. Arguably the 2G section could usefully be reorganized along similar lines, except people in real life are using terms like "2.5G". Squiggleslash 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I too dont like the 3.5G, 3.75G ecspecially as HSOPA should now be added to 3.875G. It's on the roadmap after HSUPA (now 3.75G) and before 4G. Should we just add all these HSxPAs into 3.5G and leave them there?--Darin-0 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If I were to reorganize the section according to my proposal, where would you want it? Under Improvements, or maybe "4G convergance"? Also from what I was reading of your (very informative, thanks!) HSOPA article, it looks like it's not a W-CDMA tweak like HS[DU]PA, but an entirely new air interface system for UMTS. Is this a correct characterisation? Do you support reworking the 3G part of the template the way I suggest?
(I'm also thinking of putting explanations after 2.5G (2G with packet switching) and 2.75G (2.5G with 3G technologies) so that these terms are more explicit too.)
Let me know what you think, Squiggleslash 14:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I like your approach Squiggleslash. --Darin-0 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No fractional generations, please!
What is a fractional generation? Who is it between your mother and your grandmother that is 2.5G? It's just mindless markettingspeak and hype. Nowadays eveyone has to have a fractional generation because otherwise it's just not progress, is it? Obviously I agree with the above, but I think here, it needs to be taken further. Generations are identified in retrospect or are marked by broad changes in technology. They aren't dictated by phone companies or mobile handset makers. I remeber years ago when the local junior mobile phone company trumpeted their new 3G network (circa 1998) - becuase they were using 1800MHz GSM instead of 900MHz! 4G networks abound all over the world if you believe press releases. We don't have to play along, we're in search of truth and rational discourse, not marketing drivel. An article referring to the practice is one thing, having in our mobile infobox is another. Darkov 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] HSOPA / HSPA+
HSOPA is only a part of 3GPP Long Term Evolution (or 3GPP release 8). Indeed it's only a proposal not yet accepted by 3GPP. HSOPA is never mentioned in any 3GPP document. HSOPA name is often incorrectly used for HSPA+, a new high speed standard that will be published next months under 3GPP release 7. HSPA+ name is used on many 3GPP official documents. I know there is not an article on HSPA+ but template is correct deleting HSOPA (subject to be covered by 3GPP Long Term Evolution) and adding HSPA+ that is to be standardized soon in 3GPP release 7. Comments are welcome. Armando82 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that HSOPA and the on-going LTE Rev. 8's E-UTRA are slightly different (I thought they were related at first too because ), and HSOPA is a proposed air interface for Rev. 7, being considered a transition technology to Rev. 8, which is why it's being referred to as part of the 3G standards. Bear in mind LTE is effectively throwing out/refactoring the whole of UMTS and doing yet another rewrite, much as UMTS did with GSM. My guess would be that HSOPA is a proposed HSPA+ but I haven't found a specific spec for what HSPA+ is.
Because much of this is up for discussion, there's no clear direction as to where things are going, and terminology is regularly changing.
Either way though, there shouldn't be a link in the template to an article that doesn't exist. HSPA+ shouldn't be in the template. If you want to remove HSOPA, then I have no objection (especially as it's not clear anything called HSOPA will ever be deployed) but I think replacing it with HSPA+ shouldn't be done until there is an HSPA+ (or eHSPA) article. My primary objections to your edit were:
- HSOPA isn't LTE
- HSPA+ isn't an article (yet)
At the very least, we need an HSPA+ article before we include it in the table, and HSOPA should never be considered LTE. --Squiggleslash 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
